THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.516 of 2014 DATED:5.8.2014 Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad.
And M/s. Tanvi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad.
… Appellant ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.516 of 2014
Judgment : (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 15.3.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the following suggested questions of law:
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in its interpretation that the respondent assessee is not trading in shares despite the fact that the income from transactions in shares being more than the interest income from Non-Banking Financial Company activities and the respondent assessee had clear intention to trade in shares ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law, in holding that the respondent assessee is an investor when the respondent assessee is indulging in trading in shares ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law, in determining the nature of the transactions based upon mere book entries of the respondent assessee ?
It appears from the aforesaid questions and also after hearing Mr. S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the crux of the questions is whether the nature of the business and transaction of the assessee is an investment or trading activity in relation to the shares.
The learned Tribunal, on fact and after examining the books of accounts, found that there is no indication of trading activity with regard to the shares. The shares were treated to be acquired for the purpose of investment only. Being so, the learned Tribunal or for that matter, we cannot come to any other legal conclusion except than what has been done.
We, therefore, do not find any element of law to admit the appeal as the appreciation of fact was done in aid and support with the questions suggested. Hence, we dismiss the appeal.
The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 5th August, 2014 pnb SANJAY KUMAR, J